Councillor Conduct

[trout]

^^ perhaps you'd like to give a wider evidential critique as to why you have come to reach this conclusion?

 

Sweeping generalisations such as you have posted add nothing to sustain any valuable discussion!

[shetlandlady]

thank you mainlander for your post, it sure is nice to feel like I'm not the only one frustrated with useless posts, its a shame your post had to be followed with another one.

[moorit]

I agree with you, shetlandlady, and have become very demoralised by how my posts are often met with personal insults just because my view is different from a lot of others who post.

 

mainlander do you agree with this?

 

"

If having a drink in the Town Hall is sooooo wrong then surely they should stop hiring it out for public functions like weddings where there is a bar involved. Surely the public has not become so politically correct that they can no longer imagine having a dram at the end of a days work, and who are we to pressume it was anything more.

 

[shetlandlady]

moderators - maybe you should just delete my posts from this thread.....I hoped to be involved in a discussion and maybe open a few minds to the possibility that Clark should be given a chance but it has quickly descended into an attack on my opinions with no one else voicing their own.

 

I dont know if you can delete threads but if you can, this one would surely be worth deleting.

 

Sorry for having an opinion

[mainlander]

What a shame that you have been made to feel that way, shetlandlady. But I can't say I blame you. I hope that next time you join in a topic your views are not treated in the same way.

 

Councillor conduct, and the other local government threads, are important for both sides to be able to make their points. If there is only room for one viewpoint, with nobody feeling able to dissent from that due to the unpleasant nature of responses, then Shetlink will soon become a very boring place.

 

In addition, many more people read the threads than post on them, and they deserve to see both points of view.

[icepick239]

I don't know if this can be done, but something of a Statutory Nature has to be done:

It seems to me, that Shetland is like one huge Credit Card and it's over the limit by far.

 

This present council did seem to start very well, but it soon began to go the same way as the previous one, lacking leadership and direction - why?

Millions have been wasted over the years - why?

The staggering amounts of money that have been budgetted for already could now be added to by another 51million for Whalsay (111-60).

 

At the Audit & Scrutiny Committee meeting today, the Chairperson (Mrs Grains) discussing the Audit-Scotland Report Quote: Felt it had been a very accurate report. Unquote

This laid-back attitude has been directed at Audit-Scotland for years now and if I were a councillor, I would now start to feel a bit worried, especially in regard to the other criticisms mentioned therein

[mainlander]

 

mainlander do you agree with this?

 

"

If having a drink in the Town Hall is sooooo wrong then surely they should stop hiring it out for public functions like weddings where there is a bar involved. Surely the public has not become so politically correct that they can no longer imagine having a dram at the end of a days work, and who are we to pressume it was anything more.

 

 

I think I posted my thoughts regarding that on the Chief Exec thread quite a while ago, moorit, I don't remember the dates I'm afraid. But even if I disagreed, I wouldn't have mocked shetlandlady for having her own view.

[Fjool]

I agree. Don't take it personally, shetlandlady. There are too many ways to misunderstand each other on the internet. Put it down to experience and move on to another topic. I did think one or two folks were harsh on you, but it's not worth getting upset for.

 

As for those one or two... for shame, etc. Topic and so forth.

[hoosn]

i think i agreed earlier , i cant see Clark is out of order, but some of the greeting geebies may well be

[Ghostrider]

Regarding your earlier post:

 

"alleged" threatening phone call put aside, what else is so "outrageous" that Clark has actually done so far?

 

Hiring his crony to undertake the first significant task he was entrusted with, then delivering an allegedly incomplete result, and allegedly employing creative accounting in the process, was somewhat short of ideal to understate the fact. So was the circumstancial removal of his immediate subordinate, and named rival, from his position, allegedly in contravention of employment legislation and on questionable authority.

 

As far as I have been able to find out, Mr Clark only recommended the consultant referred to, and the council were totally at liberty to appoint someone else. If the council were unhappy with the consultant's conclusions, they could of course take action to recover fees paid to him.

 

Whether he recommended him or appointed him is hardly the point as I see it. Laidler was an ex-colleague (employee??) of Clark's, can Clark honestly say his recommendation (or appointment) of Laidler was completely objective, wholly unbiased and the best one for the SIC? Given the circumstances, I don't think Clark is in a position to make an accurate judegment of such things.

 

Especially as this was the first task asked of him by his new employers, it would have been, or at least I would hope in the majority of people's opinion, prudent, that it was undertaken in a manner that was squeaky clean, entirely by the book, and beyond any reproach or question. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and first impressions last longest.

 

IMHO, there was nothing wrong in him recommending an ex-colleague, had he made that abundantly clear in his recommendation, AND offered the council an equally viable alternative recommendation, should they feel concerned about his ability to remain objective concerning an ex-colleague. He did neither as far as I have been made aware.

 

Despite the early claims made by Mr Shannon, his friends and family, over the weeks it became clear that it was extremely unlikely any employment legislation had been breached. There had been an error in procedure, but as Mr Clark had consulted both the council legal department and the leader of the council before taking any action, that error was not his.

 

Does it really matter whether it was a breach of national employment legislation, or a breach of procedure pertaining to such things peculiar to the organisation involved, how Clark proceeded in handling the Assistant CE post was in contravention of what was permissable in the circumstances, it all amounts to the same thing in the end. Clark's actions broke the rules.

 

Did Clark consult the Council's legal department before acting? I have never seen that reported. The only information concerning his authorisation to act as he did that I am aware of was that he had "consulted with senior Councillors".

 

Granted the error is not wholly his responsibility, but he must take responsibility for proceeding with action which has been shown to be erronous. Certainly the senior Councillors who gave the plan the nod are partially culpable as well, but as yet they remain, as far as I am aware, un-named, so Clark alone has to take the flack until and unless his co-culprits are made know. His is the only name in the frame of culpability right now.

 

This, to me at least, is the whole crux of the numerous issues surrounding Clark, he has been party to many questionable actions which have raised numerous questions, none of which have as yet been adequately answered, if answered at all.

 

For example, concerning the Assistant CE debacle only.

 

Did Clark consult with the council's legal Dept before acting? If so, did he take their advice, or not? If not,why not? If he didn't consult them, why not? Who were the senior Councillors who he consulted? Did he take their advice,or not? If not, why not?

 

It leaves us in a position where taking the scenario of giving Clark as much benefit of the doubt as possible and he's just the whipping boy in all this, that we may have a council legal department that hands out incorrect advice, and senior Councillors who potentially either don't know what they're talking about, but crash on anyway, or who willfully break rules when it suits them. To the polar opposite, of Clark potentially being a loose cannon doing what he pleases, when he pleases, how he pleases, regardless of instruction and/or advice from employer or professional colleagues, and all the various partial scenarios in between the two.

 

Bottom line, there has been nothing but an endless line of screw ups one on top of the other in the Town Hall since summer, all of them in some way have Clark's name attached someplace. Perhaps that's coincidence driven by his position rather than culpability, but until and unless there's a lot of naming and shaming where all the numerous goof ups are attributed to the individual(s) responsible for them, and those individual(s) forced to accept their responsibility for them, nothing can go nowhere.

 

As I said before, as is Clark is the only name in the potentially culpable frame right now, therefor until or unless some finger pointing and naming starts, he's stuck with shouldering all the stick for everything, whether wholly his doing or not.

[icepick239]

Excellent Mr. Ness -

[icepick239]

FJOOL - Please let me know where my New Post has gone to.

There one minute, gone the next and without any communication from Shetlink.

Thanks

[icepick239]

FJOOL - I have found it a few posts back in this thread.

I really wanted a new thread though - can it be done.

I am sure it will attract much attention etc or it should do.

Thanks again

[Njugle]

Your thread was merged by a moderator because it was similar enough in nature to the ones already running that is is a fair assumption that much of the same content would appear in each, as has already happened with three previous threads, one of which is now locked and the other two may well be merged. All three contained near identical posts at times, even from the same posters over a period of time.

 

Situations such as this detract from any productive ideas being put across because people tend to become disinterested and/or confused when they encounter the same subject matter in several threads.

 

I could suggest that if you are keen to pursue that line of discussion you wait until this one has abated somewhat.

[jimmy parks]

Excellent posts Shetlandlady and Mainlander. I'm at a loss to understand Ghostrider's persistant attacks on Mr Clark. Maybe he's not from Da Ness at all but Mr Wills in disguise.